Frosty’s Snowflakes

By Calamity June

We’ve noticed that over the last few days, Frosty’s Fake News has led with a “warning” to the rejects and sore losers who are pushing a recall against AZ GOP Chairman Jonathan Lines. A typical post reads as follows:

“Any State Committeemen Being Harassed for signing a Remove AZGOP Jonathan Lines “call” petition should notified (SIC) petition spokesman Marianne Ferrari…Harassment is a Class I misdemeanor…”

Even for the typical spittle-flecked drivel of Frosty’s Fake News, this is incredibly rich. Having engaged in a near non-stop campaign of lies, smears and bullying against Chairman Lines and his team, Frosty’s Snowflakes apparently can’t handle even a modicum of scrutiny that comes with their ill-fated effort to remove AZ GOP leadership in the middle of a crucial election cycle.

SnowflakeThese snowflakes have sent the better part of the year crying about bylaws violations that don’t exist, licking their wounds over a free and fair election that they lost, and fabricating wrongdoing for the sole purpose of grabbing power. Like the liberal snowflakes who still haven’t come to grips with President Trump’s victory, Frosty’s Snowflakes similarly are unable to grasp the fact that they were rejected by the state committee in January.

So instead of working to Make America Great Again and fight for President Trump’s agenda, they throw tantrum after tantrum while attacking grassroots Republicans and attempting to shut down discussion from anyone who disagrees with them, in the best traditions of left-wing college students in need of a “safe space.”

These are snowflakes like Bruce Piepho, who compares the AZ GOP to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany; like sore loser Jim O’Connor, who claims on one side of his mouth that he is uninvolved with a recall effort, then travels up to Show Low to advocate for it; like Lori Hack, who as a Never Trump Republican was removed from the RNC convention floor after refusing to support our Republican nominee. (You can find a full list of the Recall Roster here, snowflakes all.)

While real Republicans in Arizona continue to work to register voters, turn out Republicans for municipal races and lay the groundwork for a successful 2018, Frosty and her snowflakes continue in their effort to tear down the party…and then cry crocodile tears when anyone dares to criticize their destructive behavior and calls out their lies.

They represent the height of hypocrisy and the definition of Alinksy-style tactics. And once again, they will be rejected by Republicans who want to win in 2018.

Guest opinions are not necessarily the opinion or position of Sonoran Alliance or its editors. 

Maricopa County Precinct Committeemen – You’re being played!

By “Justice Portend”

Plain white envelope, bulk postage, P.O. Box return address…it looked like junk mail. I caught a glimpse of the name in the return address corner and stopped just short of tossing it in the garbage.

Then I opened it.

What the heck…It took a couple of reads to get the entire picture.  The closer I looked the more I found.  It didn’t take long for the stench to grow.  This non-descript envelope contained a pile of hot, steamy bull manure!

I’ve been a PC in Maricopa County for many, many years and have attended enough of these meetings to know how things should be done. This is not it, folks. A blatant disregard for truth and decency is on every page, the bylaws are completely ignored over and over, and the motives of whoever is behind this cannot be fueled by the best interests of the party!

First, the Bylaws are very clear in describing what should be in the call:

C. Notice – The Secretary or designee shall deposit in the mail at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting notice of the meeting, addressed to each member. Copies of proposed Bylaws changes and the reasons of support, new resolutions, if any, and a proxy form must also be included.

A link to a web site does not meet the bylaws requirement, not even close! Every PC in Maricopa County has the right to see what they will vote on and the bylaws declare a copy of every proposed change, and the rationale for each, to be included in the call. This rule is in place for us, the PC’s.  There is no leeway or discretion!  The Chairman is obligated to make sure that happens – he didn’t. He ordered the official call letter to be mailed in violation of the clearly stated Bylaw put in place to insure we -the PC’s – are informed.

Corruption: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people

The whole thing smacks of corruption and disrespect toward the duly elected and appointed PC’s, the real grassroots.  We’ve walked, knocked, written checks, attended meetings and made phone calls and we did it to build our party, to get Republicans elected not to be dismissed as unimportant, simple minded morons that would never question the chairman! We must demand the bylaws be followed – this type of disrespect should make every PC beyond angry!

Then comes the “Special Meeting”.  Where to start… what possible good can come from this?  We are in the middle of an election year and this guy thinks calling a special meeting to “recall” leadership is smart? What is the real purpose of this destructive meeting?

Is he willing to sacrifice what is best for the party to get revenge?  Bowyer barely survived a no confidence motion by one vote in November – his vote. Minus Bowyer, it was a split 14-14 vote, meaning half the LD Chairman and Executive Committee members in the county voted for “no confidence” and the Bowyer faction is after payback.  Here’s what is missing in the picture – he is targeting the two members he feels led the charge but what about the rest of the EGC, the 50% who clearly voted against him? Is this a warning shot, a flexing of his political muscle? Rather than show some leadership and move on, this chairman would rather embarrass the entire party so he can attempt to get his pound of flesh.

We’ve seen some pretty outlandish things out of the MCRC, but this chairman beats them all!

Now comes some more information that is beyond the pale. All the newly appointed PC’s who are absolutely eligible to vote in this “special meeting”, didn’t get a call letter. That’s right, PC’s were deliberately not given notice of the meeting and pending election. Remember, this is not a normal election, the only way to know is if you get the letter and proxy.

Disenfranchise: to prevent (a person or group of people) from having the right to vote

Why? Go back to that plain, white bulk-rate envelope. That may hold the answer to many things.

If the bylaw changes had been printed, it would have likely been a larger mailing and higher postage.  So, it looks like Bowyer opted to skip our right to see the proposed bylaw changes in order to have room for his ridiculous special meeting call.

But why not notice the new PC’s?

The rules of bulk rate are that all the letters must contain the same information. The new PC’s aren’t eligible to vote in the Mandatory Meeting, if there were envelopes containing only the special meeting notice, they would hold significantly fewer pages and would have been noticed at the post office. Those letters would have to go first class mail which is a higher rate. Oh well, those folks don’t matter – do they?

This also explains why they can credential both meetings at the same time. Just leave the new PC’s out and then you only need one list.  When, if ever, has there been an official meeting with credentialing completed 6 or more hours BEFORE the meeting begins?

So, what we’ve got folks are a couple of things.

  1. A Mandatory Meeting with a call letter that is in blatant violation of the Bylaws, to the detriment of PC’s.  What is in those Bylaw revisions that they are trying to hide?  Why were mandatory, well-known rules not followed? What authority allowed for such a decision – this smacks of Obama Executive Order politics. It’s what the chairman wants, who needs rules. At a minimum, the Bylaw revision vote should be cancelled.
  2. A ridiculous, damaging “Special Meeting” where a portion of the electorate was deliberately denied notice and proxy provisions. Why were they intentionally denied their right to participate? How can that be tolerated?
    How far will we, the PC’s, allow this corruption, abuse of power and abandonment of principles to go?  The rule of law and individual responsibility should matter.

Then here’s something to think about… This chairman openly trains members of a different political party to be activists.  He openly uses the MCRC office to run a non-GOP 501 (c)3. His actions have shown he has a complete disdain for PC’s, no respect or intent to follow the bylaws, and is acting in opposition to the best interest of the party.  Could it be his plan is to be a “disruptor” and we’ve been played? It sure looks that way

Disrupt:

  1. to cause disorder or turmoil
  2. to destroy, usually temporarily, the normal continuance or unity
  3. to break apart
  4. to radically change 
  5. broken apart; disrupted.

Phoenix, Tucson, Recall Elections: Predictions Anyone?

Here’s your chance to make predictions regarding the outcome of the elections. (Please keep it civil!)

It’s Time to Recall Rep. Ben Arredondo in the Spirit of Consistency: Update: Who’s Next? Arredondo or Arpaio?

Watching the recall effort take place in legislative district 18 one is left wondering why other recalls are not taking place elsewhere across the state, especially in legislative district 17.

Pearce recaller and failed Democratic US Senate candidate, Randy Parraz, likes to cite public policy differences as the reason for recalling Russell Pearce but fails to mention any of the other State Senators or Representatives who also voted for these same pieces of legislation.

Mr. Parraz, why not seek recall efforts against any of the other legislators who voted for these same public policy proposals? And if your motive is to recall someone who you disagree with on public policy issues, why haven’t you made a practice of this during all the off-year elections since you cannot seem to win elections (including your own) during the regular election cycle.

Pearce recaller’s motives don’t make sense if this is only about disagreements on public policy.

That’s why Pearce recallers like to bring up the Fiesta Bowl scandal as another reason for recalling Senator Pearce. They argue that Pearce accepted in-kind donations from Fiesta Bowl representatives over several years and then voted on legislation that affected the Fiesta Bowl.

Hmmmm… I thought that’s how lobbying worked at the State Capitol, especially when it comes down to labor and teachers unions donating gobs and gobs of money to Democrats.

What Pearce recallers fail to mention and the hypocrisy is GLARING, is that Fiesta Bowl representatives also gave in-kind donations to other legislators. At the top of the list is Legislative District 17 State Representative, Ben Arredondo who actually voted a $6,450,000 MILLION subsidy to bring the Insight Bowl from Phoenix to Tempe. Maybe a little more clarification on the gifts to Arredondo from a third party is appropriate at this point. Here’s what the Arizona Republic wrote on May 13th:

Gifts to Arredondo 

Arredondo, a former teacher and coach, was running for Tempe City Council in 2001 when seven Fiesta Bowl employees made $875 in contributions to his campaign. Three years later, four employees made another $1,200 in contributions. 

At that time, the Fiesta Bowl was headquartered in Tempe and played its game in ASU’s Sun Devil Stadium. 

In 2005, the Fiesta Bowl was looking to move its sister game, the Insight Bowl, out of downtown Phoenix. Negotiations began with Tempe, which was looking to replace the Fiesta Bowl at Sun Devil Stadium since the Fiesta was moving to Glendale. One of the key negotiators was Arredondo, according to Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman. 

“It’s fair to say Ben Arredondo was intimately involved with ASU, Insight and the Fiesta Bowl,” Hallman said. “Ben Arredondo was continually involved in negotiations.” 

Hallman said Arredondo also was close to Husk, who, in addition to lobbying for the Fiesta Bowl, had been a paid consultant for Tempe. 

After reaching a memorandum of understanding in July 2005, the city the following year agreed to give the Fiesta Bowl a $6.45 million subsidy to host the Insight Bowl through 2013. The subsidy for each of the next two years is $850,000, while the final year’s payment is $900,000, according to the contract. 

In 2007, 2008 and 2009, the Fiesta Bowl said it provided Arredondo with expensive National Football League tickets, including 2009 Super Bowl tickets worth $4,000. In summer 2009, the bowl said, he called saying he wanted to go on a trip. The bowl paid all expenses for Arredondo and his wife, Ruthann, to travel to Minnesota to watch a college football game. 

“We paid for everything: the game, the hotel, the meals and the airfare,” Anthony Aguilar, the bowl’s director of community and corporate relations, told Fiesta Bowl investigators. 

Arredondo did not return calls to his house, where messages were left with his wife. Ruthann Arredondo declined to answer questions. 

On April 1, after the Fiesta Bowl investigative report had been released, Arredondo amended his financial disclosure forms for 2007, 2008 and 2009 to show he received a gift worth more than $500 from the Fiesta Bowl. The amended 2009 form indicates his wife also received a gift. The nature of the gifts was not disclosed.

Where am I going with all this? Here’s my point: The recall effort against Russell Pearce is NOT really about public policy. And it’s not even about the Fiesta Bowl in-kind donations.

The recall effort against Russell Pearce is about people who hate and don’t like Russell Pearce. It’s about working voters up into a rabid frenzy mob mentality to go after someone who you can later say, “We took down Russell Pearce!” If this was a regular election year, these frothing folks would not have anything to rally around because they’d be defending their own political turfs from an electorate that votes right of center. This is about Randy Parraz building a list of people to be exploited elsewhere against another Republican.

So my big question is why won’t the Parraz-led recallers be consistent and also recall Representative Ben Arredondo? The reality is they won’t because Arredondo votes the way they want him to vote.

My challenge is for them to stop being hypocrites and mount a recall effort against Ben Arredondo. And if they can’t find it in themselves to be intellectually honest and consistent, maybe its time for another group to form and recall Ben Arredondo.

UPDATE – November 9, 2011: 

The Recall election was a major success for Randy Parraz and crew. Election night, Parraz made the following statement to the Arizona Republic:

Parraz said he and his allies may go after other politicians whom he blames for poisoning Arizona’s political discourse, singling out Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was at Pearce’s side throughout the recall campaign.

“We’re looking at other people, like Sheriff Arpaio,” Parraz said. “If that’s the type of politics Sheriff Arpaio wants, we’ll see what happens in the new year.”

Don’t say we didn’t warn you…

Secretary of State Bennett Releases Statement on Pearce Recall

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 8, 2011
CONTACT: Amy Bjelland

Today, Secretary of State Ken Bennett notified Govern Jan Brewer of his determination that recall petition serial number RC-04-2011, filed by the Citizens for a Better Arizona Committee exceeds the number of minimum signatures required by the Arizona Constitution to be placed on the ballot at the next consolidated election date that is 90 days or more after the order calling the election. Today constitutes the official filing date of the petition. (read the entire press release).

Friday Poll: Do you support or oppose the recall of Senator Russell Pearce?

It’s Friday again and that means a new poll! This time we’re asking the question whether or not you support or oppose the recall of Senator Russell Pearce.

The poll will remain open until next Friday and will limit voting based on cookie and IP address.

This will also be your chance to sound off on the committee supporting and committee opposing the recall effort.